Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Net Neutrality: Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship – International Policy Digest (press release) (blog)

Health + Tech /13 Jul 2017

Organized protests are taking place against the Trump administrations goal of dismantling net neutrality, which will enable the powerful plutocrats who rule the United States to severely limit the ability of Americans to share anti-establishment ideas and information online. The United States of America is not a democracy, nor a democratic republic, nor a representative democracy, nor a constitutional republic, nor any combination of the above. America is effectively a corporatist oligarchy, according to a Cambridge University-published study conducted by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin.

Since the Supreme Court has slowly made it legal for the billionaire class to fully control the US government by legalizing corporate lobbying and campaign funding in a way that undeniably amounts to legalized bribery (see 1976s Buckley v. Valeo, 1978s First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and 2010s Citizens United v. FEC), America is now ruled by the wealthy and the people who serve them as surely as a monarchy is ruled by a king or queen.

Ending net neutrality in the name of letting the Magical Free Market Economics Fairy sort things out in an unregulated system, as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been advocating, only makes sense if you live in a fictional America that isnt ruled by a small group of plutocrats. Since no American lives in a country wherein ordinary citizens can influence their government in any meaningful way, this cannot possibly be the case.

The US is a nation whose entire government is ultimately answerable only to the owners of enormous multinational corporations and banks, which means that deregulating the ability of those plutocrats to control internet communications is the exact same thing as allowing state censorship. Its easy to get lost in the smaller battles and partisan politics, but when you zoom out and look at the big picture US politics can accurately be described as the slow, suffocating process of robbing the American people of power and giving it to the plutocrats while preserving the illusion of democracy. This new bid to dismantle net neutrality is just one more of the many, many steps that have been taken over many generations to allow this to happen.

Net neutrality is an obstacle for US oligarchs in that it hamstrings their ability to manipulate web traffic away from information which challenges their rule. By dismantling an independent internet, the ever-growing media conglomerates who provide internet services will be able to choke off smaller independent sites by slowing them down with an unaffordable fee for faster service, which will put fewer eyes on dissenting online media. That may be all they need to do to strangle the media revolution, which for the first time in history caused Americas unelected power establishment to completely lose control of the narrative on both ends of the political spectrum in 2016.

The internet has been causing many problems for the ruling class, who up until very recently were able to use the consolidated legacy media they own to manipulate and control the way Americans think and vote. Last year, saw a populist candidate named Bernie Sanders nearly secure the Democratic party nomination while openly using the word oligarchy on national television and speaking out against the billionaire class. Then the official preferred candidate failed to win the general election. This all happened because the American people were able to use the alternative media, social media and WikiLeaks to form their own narratives about what was happening in their country.

Now, the oligarchs were never afraid of either Sanders nor Trump; subsequent events have shown that the US power establishment has been able to push those two individuals around pretty effectively. What they feared, and continue to fear, is the way the people broke out of their corporate media brain boxes and started fighting to take power away from the oligarchs and give it back to themselves. If they lose the ability to manufacture the consent of the governed using their media propaganda machine, they will be unable to govern, and people will use their insurmountable numbers to overthrow them by whatever means.

I feel very confident telling all of my readers that no matter where you are on the political spectrum, the dismantling of net neutrality is bad for you. Go to YouTube and watch some video footage of Ajit Pai right now. Ignore his words and just watch his face, listen to his tone of voice. That is not a sincere person. You can feel it in your guts. Trust that feeling. This former Verizon lawyer isnt trying to dismantle net neutrality because he wants to help you; this former Verizon lawyer is trying to dismantle net neutrality because he wants to hurt you. He wants to take away your power and give it to the ruling class he serves.

Net neutrality was one of the very few victories the American people were able to secure for themselves prior to last year, and they need to fight for it. It will be a challenge, because the ruling elites want the internet as loyal to pro-establishment narratives as they can possibly make it, but its worth fighting for. Dont let these creeps take this away from you.

Read the rest here:
Net Neutrality: Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship - International Policy Digest (press release) (blog)

Liu’s death triggers frantic Chinese censorship – Bangkok Post

Hong Kong citizens mouth the death of Liu Xiaobo outside the Liaison Office Of The Central People's Government In The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Thursday. (New York Times photo)

BEIJING - There was media silence Thursday in China after the death of Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo was confirmed to the rest of the world.

Censors scrubbed social media and blocked internet searches for his name.

Liu was China's most influential dissident and his death has made headlines around the world.

The BBC reported that Xu Xin - a user with 31 million followers - posted a few candle emojis, which have been removed.

People often use candle emojis on Weibo to commemorate someone who has died.

A search on the popular Sina Weibo microblog brings up a message saying "according to relevant laws and policies, results for 'Liu Xiaobo' cannot be displayed".

Official Xinhua "news" agency, the country's state-controlled outlet, reported in English the death of dissident Liu, marking the first time Xinhua hac mentioned him since his hospitalisation.

But the news of the 61-year-old democracy activist's death from liver cancer while in custody remained absent from Xinhua's main Chinese service more than an hour after it was published on the English-language wire.

The urgent single-paragraph English report recalled that Liu was "convicted of subversion of state power" in 2009 but it made no mention of his Nobel prize.

Chinese authorities tightly controlled information about Liu's condition after disclosing last month that he was released on medical parole following a diagnosis of late-stage liver cancer.

The hospital where he received treatment, the First Hospital of China Medical University in the northeastern city of Shenyang, was heavily guarded and his family members had barely any contact with the outside world

Before Liu's death, fought for information control, the Associated Press reported.

From coordinated leaks of hospital surveillance video to a near-total news blackout for Chinese-language media and social media, the Chinese government's sprawling propaganda apparatus revved up efforts to contain the controversy surrounding its most prominent political dissident.

The Apple Daily's front-page photo showed Hong Kong defiance of Chinese censorship.

In an update Tuesday afternoon, the hospital treating Liu said he remains in critical condition and is now on dialysis and organ support.

Liu was convicted in 2009 of inciting subversion for his role in the "Charter 08" movement calling for political reform. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a year later while in prison.

Chinese media have hardly mentioned repeated calls by the US, the European Union and others for Beijing to let Liu leave on humanitarian grounds. On Tuesday, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert again urged China to parole Liu so he can receive medical care at a location of his choosing.

Chinese state media have provided extensive coverage this past week of President Xi Jinping's recent achievements, especially his travels to Russia and Germany, which they portrayed as a massive public relations triumph for China.

On Tuesday, heavily controlled state newspapers including the official People's Daily and the English-language China Daily trumpeted Xi's call to "unswervingly advance" China's judicial reform and improve the military.

Meanwhile, the daily barrage of questions about Liu fired off by the international press at foreign ministry news briefings were all excised from the ministry's published transcripts, as if they were never asked.

The few mentions of Liu in the state media's overseas-oriented English editions in recent weeks contained denouncements and tough language aimed at foreign audiences.

"It is probably out of politics that some people and forces are requesting Liu to be treated abroad," the nationalistic and Communist Party-controlled Global Times tabloid, published by the People's Daily, said in an editorial Tuesday headlined "Liu's cancer treatment mustn't be politicised."

"Today's China is stronger and more confident, and will not yield to Western pressure," it said, accusing unidentified overseas forces of "squeezing Liu for their political goals."

Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang reiterated on Tuesday that China hopes other countries can "respect China's judicial sovereignty and not use such an individual case to interfere in China's domestic affairs."

Get full Bangkok Post printed newspaper experience on your digital devices with Bangkok Post e-newspaper. Try it out, it's totally free for 7 days.

Read the original:
Liu's death triggers frantic Chinese censorship - Bangkok Post

India’s censors now won’t allow the word ‘cow’ in a documentary about Harvard economist – Washington Post

NEW DELHI He may have won a Nobel Prize, but renowned Harvard economist Amartya Sen cannot say the word cow in a new documentary, Indias movie censorship board has ruled.

The documentary, called The Argumentative Indian, is named after abookof essays written by Sen thatdwells (rather ironically) on Indias long history of intellectual pluralism and public debate. The movie will not get a license for public screenings in India unless the cuts are implemented.

Censors have not said why the word cow is objectionable. The documentary at one point talks about the Hindu nationalist, self-styled cow protectors who attack people, mainly Muslims, for carrying or eating beef. Hindus consider the cow tobesacred.

The move comes against the backdrop of a rising nationalistic fervor in India after the victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. The party has pushed policies in line with its conservative view of Hinduism, the predominant religion in this diverse nation.

Director Suman Ghosh told IndiasTelegraphnewspaper that the censorship underlines the relevance of the documentary in which Sen highlights the growing intolerance in India.

He added, There is no way I would agree to beep or mute or change anything that one of the greatest minds of our times has said in the documentary.

It wasnt just cows that caught the censors attention.Ghosh was also asked by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to remove words such as Gujarat, the name of an Indian state, Hindu India, and Hindutva view of India, referring to the nationalist Hindu ideologyespousedby the BJP.The filmmakers face a lengthy appeals process through which they will attempt to fight the censorship boards decision.

In India, where films draw audiences numbering in the millions, nationalist ideology has slowly seeped into the experience of going to the movies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ordered that thenational anthembe played before every screening and that audiences must stand during it.

The CBFC has increasingly comeunder firefor overzealous censorship and moral policing under the leadership of Pahlaj Nihalani, avocal supporterof the BJP, who appears to take offense at any implied criticism of India or Hinduism.

Recently, the board asked directors to remove all references to the northern state of Punjab in a crime drama called Udta Punjab, meaning Flying Punjab or High Punjab. Instead, the board demanded, the movie should be set in a fictional land. Censors made no comment at the time as to why references to Punjab were objectionable.

In the recent James Bond movie, Spectre, a kissing scene was cut short. Another controversy involves an upcoming Bollywood romantic comedy called Jab Harry Met Sejal, playing on the title of When Harry Met Sally, in which censors objected to the word intercourse.

The threat of violence from right-wing mobs also has resulted in censorship in recent months. In the Bollywood blockbuster Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, the role ofPakistani actor Fawad Khan was allegedly trimmed after a right-wing groupthreatenedto burn cinemas down.

The Argumentative Indian, which centers onSen, shows clips of his conversations with former World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu.

The word cow, which the board wants removed from the film, is heard in an answer to Basus question about the context of Sen'sbook, according to the Telegraph. As part of his answer, Sen says, There was a kind of grandness of vision there, and an integrated picture which hangs together in trying to embrace each other, not through chastising people for having mistreated a cow or some other thing, but dealing with people in terms of argument.

Speaking tothe Telegraph, Harvard historian Sugata Bose, who also features in the documentary, lambasted attempts to block the film. It is a preposterous and unacceptable assault on the freedom of expression. The film ought to be given a certificate immediately. It is an academic film primarily where every word has been carefully weighed, he said.

Continue reading here:
India's censors now won't allow the word 'cow' in a documentary about Harvard economist - Washington Post

El Salvador media bill prompts ‘censorship’ claim – BBC News


BBC News
El Salvador media bill prompts 'censorship' claim
BBC News
Critics accuse the state of trying to censor the press. But the security minister has justified the bill, saying the measures would be introduced to protect the population's mental health. The media clause is part of the proposed Law on the National ...

and more »

View post:
El Salvador media bill prompts 'censorship' claim - BBC News

Armenian Film Festival Sparks LGBT Outrage, Cries Of Censorship – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Armenia's Golden Apricot international film festival has run into controversy as rights activists accuse organizers of censorship for scrapping part of the event that featured two films dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) themes.

The two features, Listen To Me: Untold Stories Beyond Hatred and Apricot Groves, were scheduled outside the competitive portion of the weeklong festival under the rubric Armenians: Internal And External Views.

Festival organizers, however, canceled the entire slate of 36 films by Armenian directors, as well as foreign productions about Armenia and Armenians, to be shown in the section, saying only that they "apologize for any inconveniences."

The move immediately sparked a backlash from filmmakers and rights groups who said it was a thinly veiled attempt at censorship reminiscent of the Soviet era and the Ottoman Empire.

"We condemn the actions of both the Union of Cinematography of Armenia, that has dared to censor the special program of the Golden Apricot International Festival because of the themes broached in the films Listen To Me: Untold Stories Beyond Hatred and Apricot Groves," more than 100 of the country's filmmakers, artists, and rights advocates said in a letter to the organizers.

"Golden Apricot should immediately restore the screening of all films regardless of the format. Otherwise the Golden Apricot International Festival should accept that they are the ones who are legitimizing the censorship and changes in the festival."

Facing Prejudice

Though homosexuality has been legal in Armenia since 2003, the subject is still taboo within Armenian society, which is firmly guided by the Apostolic Church.

The country does not recognize formalized same-sex relationships performed locally, has no antidiscrimination laws, and gay men are declared mentally ill and unfit for military service.

In the documentary Listen To Me, written by Hovhannes Ishkhanyan and directed by Gagik Ghazerah, 10 members of the LGBT community relate their experiences of coming out to their friends, families, and community.

Included in the group is Tsomak Oganezova, the owner of a gay pub in Yerevan that was firebombed and vandalized with Nazi symbols in 2012. Oganezova has said she left Armenia after the attacks "to be with those like me."

Pouria Heidary Oureh's Apricot Groves is about Aram, an Iranian-Armenian trans man who has lived in the United States since childhood. The story follows him as he returns to Armenia to meet his girlfriend's conservative family and make preparations for their marriage.

Both films have already been featured at festivals around the world.

"Understanding the fact that this is not only discrimination against the Armenian LGBT community, and a violation of freedom of expression and freedom to create, but also a slap to Armenian cinematography, we are calling upon the Ministry of Culture of Armenia, the staff, and sponsors, and partners of the...festival to put all their efforts to restore the whole...program," supporters wrote in a petition to Culture Minister Armen Amiryan*, the Cinematographers Union, and festival organizers.

'Officially Sanctioned Hate'

Given the hostile conditions they face, many LGBT people say they remain closeted to avoid discrimination and violence.

In 2015, a local tabloid outed dozens of LGBT advocates, calling on readers to shun them and providing links to their Facebook profiles. The victims filed suit against the publication, but the court ruled in favor of the paper and made the plaintiffs pay $100 in fees.

That incident came after a 2012 study was published showing 55 percent of Armenians would reject a friend or relative if they came out.

"Hate speech in Armenia is rising day by day," activist Mamikon Hovsepyan said after being one of the journalists outed by the tabloid. "The homophobic media has the support of government officials and promotes aggression and hate toward LGBT people."

This year, jury members at the Golden Apricot festival include Britain's Hugh Hudson, who directed the Oscar-winning 1981 epic Chariots Of Fire, and Dutch director Tom Fassaert.

*CORRECTED from original version.

Read the original:
Armenian Film Festival Sparks LGBT Outrage, Cries Of Censorship - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty